What is our obligation to the poor?

[danielpalos]

The law is, employment at the will of either party

No. Not at the will of either party. At the will of both parties.

nope; at the will of either party.

Nope. I do not consent my will. To make me would be to force me thus proving that you do not have social morals for free.

it is at the will of either party, to continue the relationship. you merely don't understand the legal concept.

I understand the legal concept. I stated the legal concept. Employment requires consent or agreement from both parties; the employer and the employee. Your wording was flawed. I even explained why it was flawed.

just your understanding is flawed; do you Only have diversions and special pleading?

You merely have an inferior understanding of the language; you may need to go to a superior court for a better understanding.

Employment at the will of either party means both until it is ended, at the will of either party.

 

[danielpalos]

doesn't seem like it. the right seems to prefer situational ethics or capital morals for a price.

Market friendly morals and market friendly pricing, yes, yes, yes, yes. Socialists will never be good enough to have social morals for free. Thy must pay for it.

"punished by lucre"?

Yes, socialists do not have market friendly pricing or market friendly morals and will never will never be good enough to have social morals for free and are punished by lucre.

Jesus the Christ is alleged to have, "paid" for that.

Only for the next life.... not this one. Socialists will never be good enough to have social morals for free. They must pay for it.

that is why lucre, was invented.

Yes, because socialists will never be good enough to have social morals for free.

are we in Nexus 6 with Zardoz and the incorrigibles, or do we have some Hope of Salvation?

 

[danielpalos]

that is why lucre, was invented.

No, the root cause of lucre is there is no such thing as social morals for free.

that is not what Religion claims. you cannot "buy a stairway to Heaven".

But you can buy a stairway to hell. Which is why the root cause of lucre is that there is no such thing as social morals for free. Religion claims that there is no such thing as social morals for free. Someone must pay for them.

with or without, lucre?

Jesus the Christ had to do it, without lucre. Just bad timing? Should He have been born in modern times with access to an EBT card.

With AND without.

His timing was perfect.

with lucre, he could have simply hired an attorney to represent him.

 

[danielpalos]

capitalism works, what a concept. it is why the left should merely learn how to use capitalism, for all of its worth in modern times.

Only with market friendly morals and market friendly pricing, lol. Now if we could only get back to free enterprise, the good would be passed down to the people and they could have social morals for free.

under Any form of Capitalism? you must not be paying attention to the arguments.

I did not realize you were making an argument. What argument are you making? I am using your own language. Are you arguing against yourself? Free enterprise without constraints is how we arrive at market friendly morals and market friendly pricing. Socialism will never work because it requires social morals for free.

what do you mean by, "free constraints"? do you Only mean, free from Government intervention, or some other form of "free"?

Free enterprise can never be free because social morals for free are not free.

Capital morals require capital to circulate.

 

[ding]

No. Not at the will of either party. At the will of both parties.

nope; at the will of either party.

Nope. I do not consent my will. To make me would be to force me thus proving that you do not have social morals for free.

it is at the will of either party, to continue the relationship. you merely don't understand the legal concept.

I understand the legal concept. I stated the legal concept. Employment requires consent or agreement from both parties; the employer and the employee. Your wording was flawed. I even explained why it was flawed.

just your understanding is flawed; do you Only have diversions and special pleading?

You merely have an inferior understanding of the language; you may need to go to a superior court for a better understanding.

Employment at the will of either party means both until it is ended, at the will of either party.

My understanding is fine. Employment requires consent or agreement from both parties; the employer and the employee. If my employer consented but I did not that would satisfy your condition of either, unfortunately, that would mean I would be forced to perform labor against my will. Your problem appears to be that you do not have social morals for free.

It almost sounded like you believe I need to go to re-education camp, lol. Winston? Is that you?

 

[ding]

Market friendly morals and market friendly pricing, yes, yes, yes, yes. Socialists will never be good enough to have social morals for free. Thy must pay for it.

Yes, socialists do not have market friendly pricing or market friendly morals and will never will never be good enough to have social morals for free and are punished by lucre.

Jesus the Christ is alleged to have, "paid" for that.

Only for the next life.... not this one. Socialists will never be good enough to have social morals for free. They must pay for it.

that is why lucre, was invented.

Yes, because socialists will never be good enough to have social morals for free.

are we in Nexus 6 with Zardoz and the incorrigibles, or do we have some Hope of Salvation?

I'm old school. Halo 1 system link tunnel software.

 

[ding]

Only with market friendly morals and market friendly pricing, lol. Now if we could only get back to free enterprise, the good would be passed down to the people and they could have social morals for free.

under Any form of Capitalism? you must not be paying attention to the arguments.

I did not realize you were making an argument. What argument are you making? I am using your own language. Are you arguing against yourself? Free enterprise without constraints is how we arrive at market friendly morals and market friendly pricing. Socialism will never work because it requires social morals for free.

what do you mean by, "free constraints"? do you Only mean, free from Government intervention, or some other form of "free"?

Free enterprise can never be free because social morals for free are not free.

Capital morals require capital to circulate.

No. Don't you remember... market friendly morals and market friendly pricing. You said so.

 

[ding]

No, the root cause of lucre is there is no such thing as social morals for free.

that is not what Religion claims. you cannot "buy a stairway to Heaven".

But you can buy a stairway to hell. Which is why the root cause of lucre is that there is no such thing as social morals for free. Religion claims that there is no such thing as social morals for free. Someone must pay for them.

with or without, lucre?

Jesus the Christ had to do it, without lucre. Just bad timing? Should He have been born in modern times with access to an EBT card.

With AND without.

His timing was perfect.

with lucre, he could have simply hired an attorney to represent him.

Why would He need to do that? He was born into this world for that very reason.... to give good testimony. That's why He was born.

 

[danielpalos]

nope; at the will of either party.

Nope. I do not consent my will. To make me would be to force me thus proving that you do not have social morals for free.

it is at the will of either party, to continue the relationship. you merely don't understand the legal concept.

I understand the legal concept. I stated the legal concept. Employment requires consent or agreement from both parties; the employer and the employee. Your wording was flawed. I even explained why it was flawed.

just your understanding is flawed; do you Only have diversions and special pleading?

You merely have an inferior understanding of the language; you may need to go to a superior court for a better understanding.

Employment at the will of either party means both until it is ended, at the will of either party.

My understanding is fine. Employment requires consent or agreement from both parties; the employer and the employee. If my employer consented but I did not that would satisfy your condition of either, unfortunately, that would mean I would be forced to perform labor against my will. Your problem appears to be that you do not have social morals for free.

It almost sounded like you believe I need to go to re-education camp, lol. Winston? Is that you?

employment is at will; that assumes an employment relationship on that basis.

 

[danielpalos]

under Any form of Capitalism? you must not be paying attention to the arguments.

I did not realize you were making an argument. What argument are you making? I am using your own language. Are you arguing against yourself? Free enterprise without constraints is how we arrive at market friendly morals and market friendly pricing. Socialism will never work because it requires social morals for free.

what do you mean by, "free constraints"? do you Only mean, free from Government intervention, or some other form of "free"?

Free enterprise can never be free because social morals for free are not free.

Capital morals require capital to circulate.

No. Don't you remember... market friendly morals and market friendly pricing. You said so.

Capitalism requires capital to circulate; only socialists may "talk for free".

 

[ding]

Nope. I do not consent my will. To make me would be to force me thus proving that you do not have social morals for free.

it is at the will of either party, to continue the relationship. you merely don't understand the legal concept.

I understand the legal concept. I stated the legal concept. Employment requires consent or agreement from both parties; the employer and the employee. Your wording was flawed. I even explained why it was flawed.

just your understanding is flawed; do you Only have diversions and special pleading?

You merely have an inferior understanding of the language; you may need to go to a superior court for a better understanding.

Employment at the will of either party means both until it is ended, at the will of either party.

My understanding is fine. Employment requires consent or agreement from both parties; the employer and the employee. If my employer consented but I did not that would satisfy your condition of either, unfortunately, that would mean I would be forced to perform labor against my will. Your problem appears to be that you do not have social morals for free.

It almost sounded like you believe I need to go to re-education camp, lol. Winston? Is that you?

employment is at will; that assumes an employment relationship on that basis.

Now you are changing what you wrote. Did you realize your inferior understanding of the language; did you go to a superior court for a better understanding?

 

[ding]

I did not realize you were making an argument. What argument are you making? I am using your own language. Are you arguing against yourself? Free enterprise without constraints is how we arrive at market friendly morals and market friendly pricing. Socialism will never work because it requires social morals for free.

what do you mean by, "free constraints"? do you Only mean, free from Government intervention, or some other form of "free"?

Free enterprise can never be free because social morals for free are not free.

Capital morals require capital to circulate.

No. Don't you remember... market friendly morals and market friendly pricing. You said so.

Capitalism requires capital to circulate; only socialists may "talk for free".

That's not what you wrote earlier. Did you realize your inferior understanding of the language; did you go to a superior court for a better understanding? Socialism requires social morals for free.

 

[danielpalos]

that is not what Religion claims. you cannot "buy a stairway to Heaven".

But you can buy a stairway to hell. Which is why the root cause of lucre is that there is no such thing as social morals for free. Religion claims that there is no such thing as social morals for free. Someone must pay for them.

with or without, lucre?

Jesus the Christ had to do it, without lucre. Just bad timing? Should He have been born in modern times with access to an EBT card.

With AND without.

His timing was perfect.

with lucre, he could have simply hired an attorney to represent him.

Why would He need to do that? He was born into this world for that very reason.... to give good testimony. That's why He was born.

dude; the nicest guy in the World, should be able insist, Only the women who are doing Him the most, Love Him, the most.

 

[ding]

But you can buy a stairway to hell. Which is why the root cause of lucre is that there is no such thing as social morals for free. Religion claims that there is no such thing as social morals for free. Someone must pay for them.

with or without, lucre?

Jesus the Christ had to do it, without lucre. Just bad timing? Should He have been born in modern times with access to an EBT card.

With AND without.

His timing was perfect.

with lucre, he could have simply hired an attorney to represent him.

Why would He need to do that? He was born into this world for that very reason.... to give good testimony. That's why He was born.

dude; the nicest guy in the World, should be able insist, Only the women who are doing Him the most, Love Him, the most.

He was a little more than that. He had no need to insist. He was born into this world for that very reason.... to give good testimony. That's why He was born.

 

[danielpalos]

with or without, lucre?

Jesus the Christ had to do it, without lucre. Just bad timing? Should He have been born in modern times with access to an EBT card.

With AND without.

His timing was perfect.

with lucre, he could have simply hired an attorney to represent him.

Why would He need to do that? He was born into this world for that very reason.... to give good testimony. That's why He was born.

dude; the nicest guy in the World, should be able insist, Only the women who are doing Him the most, Love Him, the most.

He was a little more than that. He had no need to insist. He was born into this world for that very reason.... to give good testimony. That's why He was born.

good testimony about what? the bad boy, "Barabbas" got a "get out of jail free card".

 

[danielpalos]

it is at the will of either party, to continue the relationship. you merely don't understand the legal concept.

I understand the legal concept. I stated the legal concept. Employment requires consent or agreement from both parties; the employer and the employee. Your wording was flawed. I even explained why it was flawed.

just your understanding is flawed; do you Only have diversions and special pleading?

You merely have an inferior understanding of the language; you may need to go to a superior court for a better understanding.

Employment at the will of either party means both until it is ended, at the will of either party.

My understanding is fine. Employment requires consent or agreement from both parties; the employer and the employee. If my employer consented but I did not that would satisfy your condition of either, unfortunately, that would mean I would be forced to perform labor against my will. Your problem appears to be that you do not have social morals for free.

It almost sounded like you believe I need to go to re-education camp, lol. Winston? Is that you?

employment is at will; that assumes an employment relationship on that basis.

Now you are changing what you wrote. Did you realize your inferior understanding of the language; did you go to a superior court for a better understanding?

dude; that Is the legal concept. i did not make it up. you simply appealed to ignorance and made up a rational excuse.

 

[danielpalos]

what do you mean by, "free constraints"? do you Only mean, free from Government intervention, or some other form of "free"?

Free enterprise can never be free because social morals for free are not free.

Capital morals require capital to circulate.

No. Don't you remember... market friendly morals and market friendly pricing. You said so.

Capitalism requires capital to circulate; only socialists may "talk for free".

That's not what you wrote earlier. Did you realize your inferior understanding of the language; did you go to a superior court for a better understanding? Socialism requires social morals for free.

that has Always been my position; you have merely, always had a lousy argument.

 

[BreezeWood]

the academic requirement for any economic model is to accomplish full employment as the primary criteria for sucess, irregardless the political disparities. including capitalism, socialism and everything between.

 

[danielpalos]

We can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The right wing has a problem, mustering their moral of, "goodwill toward men".

 

[ding]

With AND without.

His timing was perfect.

with lucre, he could have simply hired an attorney to represent him.

Why would He need to do that? He was born into this world for that very reason.... to give good testimony. That's why He was born.

dude; the nicest guy in the World, should be able insist, Only the women who are doing Him the most, Love Him, the most.

He was a little more than that. He had no need to insist. He was born into this world for that very reason.... to give good testimony. That's why He was born.

good testimony about what? the bad boy, "Barabbas" got a "get out of jail free card".

To the truth. Didn't you read it?